Talk:Les Webber

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Les Webber/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 04:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take this one on. Courcelles (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sources cited all look in order, though I did mess with one template to fix an error.
• "Webber pitched 432 innings and had a 23 wins, 19 losses" We're missing the word "record" somewhere in here.
• "he also helped Seattle wins a second PCL title." Win, not wins.
• Do we know why a professional athlete would be classified 4-F?
• "10 saves, which led the league." National League or all of MLB?
• Getting really picky here, but "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently" is part of MOS:NUMNOTES, and "21 wins, six losses, and 224 innings pitched over 31 games." seems therefore problematic.
• "he was demoted to the Baltimore Orioles," Might be worth explicitly calling out those Orioles as a minor-league team? I consider myself fairly conversational in sports history, and I had to follow the link to make sense of the sentence.
• Infobox calls him a World Series champion? Seriously, for one bad game in the beginning of the season? At any rate, this should be mentioned somewhere in the prose.
• No images, therefore nothing to check.

Solid article, good work! I know it is sparse in spaces, but I strongly suspect this is about the most comprehensive biography that can be written for someone who faded into obscurity after a short period as an unremarkable baseball player. Courcelles (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Non-reviewer comment No images, therefore nothing to check. Of course there is. The criteria says: Illustrated, if possible, by images (my emphasis). The thing for the reviewer to check in this case is: is it really not possible to illustrate this article with images, and why not. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I actually strongly doubt it is, given the internet's images seem to be limited to things like [1], which, for all it is trying to have responsible copyright tagging, the tags used are nonsensical and not based in actual US copyright law. Given the period he played, it'd be likely all images existing are still under copyright. (Add that there are other Les Webbers, and that Google wants to make it about Les Miserables and Andrew Lloyd Webber to spit out images...) Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Because it's a deceased person, and therefor a free image can no longer be created by us, our non-free content policy allows fair use in this case. See WP:NFCI§10. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• The GA criteria allow non-free content, they do not mandate it. And you're ignoring the problems with the actual images available. From being unsourced with no author or history information, to being merely the word of some internet uploader that they actually portray the subject of the article. One of the other rules in NFCC is not to use "an image with an unknown or unverifiable origin." Burden is on you to find one that complies. I can't, and presumably Wizardman couldn't either (or he would have included one) Indeed, mandating images in a GA when they are not readily available is going to run afoul of WP:GANOT, "If images have not been included and suitable images are not readily available, then this criterion is automatically satisfied. If you think that free or fair-use images should be readily available, then please either find and add the images yourself, or recommend specific sources or images to editors." Courcelles (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Of course, Courcelles, and I think you have presented good reasons for not including an image here. I don't do GA reviews, so I don't know what the weight of WP:GANOT is. However, I don't think it accurately describes the actual criteria. But I've come across reviews where an image was not included simply for lack of effort or being unfamiliar with the NFC policy. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Issues fixed. I'll double check my sources on why he specifically was 4-F; usually I note that when I can find it. If you mean in general, just means the armed forces didn't want him, whether it was due to poor sight or hearing, respiratory issues, or having one arm. As for the image issue, yes it would be nice to have one, but no baseball cards were made in the mid 40s that would have had him, so nothing free is out there (just missed the cut on when Bowman started up). This image might work as a possibility since a team issue would have fallen into public domain, but the angled picture makes me more reluctant to upload it. Wizardman 01:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• The 4-F thing was more of a curious inquiry than anything else, it certainly doesn't effect what we're doing here. Just let me give it another quick read-through. Courcelles (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Congrats, I'll now proceed to pass the article. Yay, paperwork! Courcelles (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)